In the medical field, many ethical issues are unique to the practice. Some ethical issues have been debated on where the cause for concern originated. The most common ethical dilemma in the medical field is autonomy in medical ethics. Autonomy in medical ethics refers to the responsibility of medical practitioners to respect the decisions that individuals make concerning their lives without interference. The concept of autonomy is the right of individuals to self-determination. Bioethics has raised concerns on whether a patient’s autonomy has value over instrumental value when issues of well-being are concerned. At the same time, philosophers insist that the concept of patient autonomy could be restricted in cases of harmful threats to the patient’s life. However, this will mean compromising the code of autonomy of medical ethics. Although patient autonomy is a fundamental human right, medical practitioners should regulate this ethical code during life-threatening cases. This is because it may assist during chances of inadequate misunderstanding, cases where it may cause harm to someone else, and instances where the decision may collude with the surgeon’s anatomy.
Health practitioners need to be vigilant in recognizing challenging situations. This is because they could dramatically lead to patient health risks (Milliken, 2018). The idea of bioethics that a patient’s anatomy has value over and beyond its value in promoting the patient’s well-being is not plausible. It can be evaluated in two different ways. The idea is unreasonable because how autonomy is measured does not count for situations with low autonomy and low well-being. This is where a patient is pressured or coerced into making a decision or when they decide on behalf of the patient without the patient’s permission. Moreover, it is also not reasonable because autonomy is context-dependent. This implies that something happens automatically or depending on the situation. The patient’s judgment may be clouded by immediate shock, fear, or panic at the moment of decision.
A medical practitioner has the responsibility to understand ethical principles. The principle of autonomy stems from informed consent, confidentiality, and truth-telling (Varkey, 2020). In a hypothetical case study, a woman was diagnosed with an abdominal aortic aneurysm, a condition that caused her stomach to swell. The doctors advised her that her condition would require surgery to remove the aneurysm. She was informed that the potential risk for the operation would be a 50/50 chance and that if the aneurysm bursts during the procedure, she would die almost immediately. Her concern was not her condition but the scar that would embody her after the surgical operation, which would cost her career. The doctors determined her reasons were irrational; therefore, they decided to proceed with the procedure without her consent by putting her under an anesthetizer. Although the operation was successful, she sued the hospital for breaching the autonomy code of medical ethics.
In this situation, the doctors felt that the patient was not making sound decisions considering the reasons she gave. This does not exempt the right she has over the decisions she makes concerning her body. There are alternative approaches to this code of ethics. They include beneficence and nonmaleficence, which offer guidance to health practitioners if they are met with a moral dilemma (Varkey, 2020). Beneficence is the responsibility of a health practitioner to protect patients by preventing harm, preserving morals and values, and eliminating harmful conditions. This approach concerns creating a positive environment for the patients. Nonmaleficence is the responsibility of the physician to avoid causing pain and suffering to the patient. The concept of nonmaleficence requires a health practitioner to gauge the patient’s situation on whether the benefits outweigh the problems. The physician must select the patient’s best possible course of action during that time. This may imply administering nutrition to the patient to keep them well-nourished or intentionally relieving the pain and suffering through using drugs.
Another cause for concern in anatomy in medical ethics is the morality aspect. Ethics also focuses on particular morality, which binds groups of people because they share culture, religion, and professions with similar ideas, opinions, and responsibilities. This particular morality raises questions on which moral values are acceptable to be followed in medical practices and why. To ensure there is limited vagueness in what medical ethics considers moral, some standardized codes for moral norms guide the physicians during decision-making. A dilemma in which standardized codes of morals are required is when a child’s life is in danger, but the mother will not accept the only possible solution to save its life which is blood transfusion, as this is against her religion. The mother’s religion is strongly against blood transfusion because they consider it a sin to share blood. The doctors cannot carry out any transfusion without the mother’s consent to perform the procedure. Although the doctors have tried to convince her, she remains adamant that her child would not be having any blood transfusion. During such instances, doctors can refer to the standardized moral codes to determine which step to take.
There are several ways that health practitioners can aim the dilemma when practicing ethical standards in the medical field. First, create a clear and well-defined list of the patient’s rights and ensure that the care is standardized across the institution’s branches. Secondly, establish a set of ethical principles, including beneficence and nonmaleficence, which will guide the health practitioner. The practitioner will use these principles when a contradiction and an intermediary are required for decision-making. Some medical situations may be emergencies; therefore, a fast decision focused on achieving the best outcome for the patient will be prioritized. In some instances, the well-being of a person may be at the expense of the community’s well-being. During these times, autonomy and authority may be stripped from the person. Third, gather as much information as possible regarding any ethical dilemmas medical practitioners meet across different institutions. Then find a feasible solution and list it as a code of standards in the institution.
Ethical dilemmas are faced in the medical practice constantly, which may sometimes result in the institution facing repercussions such as court cases for breaching these codes of conduct. It is challenging to keep track of these incidences; this is why listing a standardized code of conduct to act as a guideline will be beneficial in the long run. These codes of conduct could be consistently revised to include new ethical principles and adjust the existing ones to accommodate the changes. The medical field is filled with unpredictability because of the risky nature of the practice in these medical institutions. Therefore, it is vital to remain vigilant and focus on the set ethical codes of conduct that medical practitioners can refer to in case they are met with a dilemma.
References
Milliken, A. (2018). Ethical awareness: What it is and why it matters. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 23(1).
Varkey, B. (2020). Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Medical Principles and Practice, 30(1), pp.17–28.